2010 (2) TMI 863 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty under sec.271(1)(c) of the Act - Held that - when the assessee claimed deduction under sec. 80-IA in respect of profit derived from trading turnover which at the time of filing return of income was based on judicial precedent and supported by audited account along with audit report relating to claim u/s 80-IA, because of the subsequent decision of jurisdictional High Court if the claim is not allowable, it does not amount to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and hence penalty is not leviable. when all the facts are stated correctly but only because there is difference of opinion between the assessee and Assessing Officer on one side and the Tribunal on the other side, it cannot be said that there is concealment of particulars of income so as to levy penalty, penalty levied under sec.271(1)(c) of the Act canceled, the appeal is allowed

Issues:
- Challenge to levy of penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- Dispute over whether the transaction is a lease or financing transaction.
- Assessment of penalty for alleged concealment of income particulars.
- Applicability of penalty based on differing views of the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Penalty Levied
The appellant contested the penalty imposed under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, arguing that the claim of depreciation was bona fide and there was no deliberate concealment of income particulars. The appellant maintained that the discrepancy arose due to a difference of opinion between the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal regarding the nature of the transaction, emphasizing that all relevant income was duly disclosed. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support the contention that penalty should not be automatic in cases of mere differences in interpretation.

Issue 2: Lease vs. Financing Transaction
The core dispute revolved around whether the transaction in question was a lease or financing transaction. While the Assessing Officer initially considered it a lease transaction, the Tribunal concluded it was a financing transaction. The Tribunal's decision to treat it as a financing transaction was pivotal in determining the applicability of depreciation and interest income. However, the disagreement over the nature of the transaction did not imply concealment of income particulars by the appellant.

Issue 3: Alleged Concealment of Income Particulars
The Assessing Officer alleged that the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming excess depreciation and not offering interest income. The penalty was based on the total amount considered as concealed income. However, the appellant contended that the discrepancies were due to genuine differences in interpretation and that all relevant income had been disclosed in good faith. The Tribunal's direction to spread the interest income over the lease period further supported the appellant's position.

Issue 4: Differing Views and Penalty Imposition
The Tribunal's ultimate determination that the transaction was a financing transaction did not automatically imply concealment of income particulars by the appellant. The differing views between the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal, and the appellant highlighted the complexity of the case. The Tribunal's acceptance of the appellant's income declaration and the subsequent adjustments indicated that there was no deliberate attempt to conceal income particulars. Therefore, the penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) was deemed unwarranted and subsequently cancelled.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant's conduct was bona fide, all relevant income was disclosed, and the discrepancies arose from genuine differences in interpretation rather than deliberate concealment of income particulars. The legal precedents cited supported the decision to cancel the penalty levied under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

← Previous Next →